The U.S. Defense Department claims that its Ground-Based Missile Defense (GMD) and Standard Missile 3 (SM-3) systems make the U.S. homeland invicible from ballistic missile attack. These claims are insane, say two of the nation's top security experts. (Source: Nato Source/Atlantic Council)

The security researchers claim drone-based interception over the enemy nation is the only reliable way to shoot down ballistic missiles. (Source: DARPA/Boeing)

Iran is reportedly designing fin-less ballistic missiles that could outwit current U.S. interceptors. Iranian defense officials are pictured here unveiling their new drone bomber, which they nicknamed "the messenger of death". (Source: Reuters)

They suggest a drone based solution would fix the flaws presented by a ground-based system, using only existing tech

A new study,
though, published in
the Bulletin
of Atomic Scientists, insists
that the U.S.'s claims of security are very flawed. Authored by
two top American security authorities, the study argues that despite
recent upgrades and breakthroughs, America assertion that its
homeland is safe from any airborne nuclear threat is a "dangerous
fantasy".

George N. Lewis, a physicist and associate
director of the Peace Studies Program at Cornell University, and
Theodore A. Postal, a physicist and professor of science, technology,
and national security policy at MIT, authored the new report.

The
report specifically targets an April 2010 U.S. government resolution
that declared the U.S. to be safe from ballistic missile threats from
hostile nations such
as Iran and North Korea, thanks to its US Ground-Based
Missile Defense (GMD) and Standard Missile 3 (SM-3) systems.
According to Professors Lewis and Postal, though, this new
declaration is based on a "technical myth" as Iran is
thought to be developing countermeasures to make its ballistic
devices harder to shoot down. Other hostile nations may be
working on similar countermeasures.

But the pair of professors
isn't just griping about what they view as an ineffective strategy --
they're proposing what seems like a sensible solution. They
advise that rather than rely on what they call a "ineffective,
untested, and unworkable" GMD system, that funding instead be
put into developing a constantly airborne fleet of stealth
drones over the airspace of hostile nations.

That
way, rather than trying to shoot down missiles that have already
reached the United States, Northern and Western Europe, and Northern
Russia -- and likely are deploying countermeasures -- the drones
would instead launch fast interceptors taking out the missiles over
the hostile country's own airspace, preventing them from deploying
effective countermeasures.

The plan would also be kosher with
the New START arms reduction treaty, recently signed by U.S.
President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev.
That treaty set a limit of 1,550 ready-to-use ballistic warheads
(each) on the U.S. and Russia's respective arsenals. It also
contained language limiting
certain missile defense strategies.

The current systems,
according to the pair of researchers, are ineffective for two
reason. The first is simple physics. Interceptors, in
their current form, can only accurately predict and target regular
trajectories from finned missile designs. Iran is reportedly
designing fin-less designs that would likely cause interceptors to
miss. They could also employ tumbling missile designs, similar
to those used to defeat the Patriot Missile Defense in the Gulf War
of 1991.

Secondly, decoys can also hinder proper shoot-down.
U.S. and Russian ballistic missiles are equipped with decoy warheads,
so that once in space, the real warhead launches amid a swarm of
identical dummy warheads, making interception an increasingly
impossible task. There's no reason why Iran, North Korea, or others
would be unable to develop similar technology.

The authors
take special issue with the U.S. Defense Department's claims that the
U.S. is already defended from nuclear threats, pointing out that they
have no evidence supporting that the system would work in combat.
Professor Lewis comments, "These claims are fantastical,
audacious, and dangerous."

A drone solution they say
would provide a full answer to the problem and would not require new
technology. Further, shot down warheads would fall on enemy
territory should they still manage to activate after being hit by an
interceptor.

Professor Lewis concludes, "The situation is
urgent, as Iran is already demonstrating countermeasures in flight
tests that would render both the GMD and SM-3 long-range missile
defense systems ineffective. If we, as a nation, refuse to
confront the fact that our chosen defense system is not reliable, and
if we fail to build a robust and reliable alternative system using
existing technology, we will have only ourselves to blame if the
continental United States suffers a catastrophe as a result of the
successful delivery of a nuclear weapon by long-range ballistic
missile."

"Nowadays you can buy a CPU cheaper than the CPU fan." -- Unnamed AMD executive